Tweet
The Pakistani Taliban’s list of grievances that they’re allegedly responding to is pretty much unbounded: Beitullah Mehsud’s death (ah, so they’re claiming he’s dead again). The death of Umar al-Baghdadi of al-Qaeda in Iraq (so they’re claiming to be a new vanguard, global in focus, picking up the banner for al-Qaeda affiliates with unrelated focuses). “Global American interference and terrorism in Muslim countries, especially in Pakistan for Lalmasjid operation” (they mean the Pakistani Taliban’s failed 2007 siege of Islamabad’s Red Mosque. The U.S. didn’t have a hand in ending it — that was Pervez Musharraf). Drone strikes in the tribal areas. Aafia Siddique. They “furiously warn” NATO governments to split from the U.S., presumably with respect to Afghanistan, and “apologize for the massacres in Iraq, Yemen [notable...], Afghanistan & Pakistani tribal areas.” There’s an animated-GIF level juxtaposition of a Crusader Knight, Obama, a red devil and some dead children. If not, prepare for “the worst ever destruction.”
It should provide a sense of perspective that their first instantiation of the “worst ever destruction” was a Pathfinder loaded with gas, propane and fireworks and timing device that Mayor Mike said “looked amateurish.” Global grievances backed up with an SUV that can’t even explode do not inspire confidence in the TTP’s ability to project global power. This appears to be a rush job — Umar al-Baghdadi was killed, what, two weeks ago? — and its commensurate with the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab/Najibullah Zazi/Nidal Malik Hasan pattern of premature/immature/impotent attempts to strike fear in the heart of America. Notice as well this is a car bomb: extremely easy to construct and detonate when you’ve got an operative willing to do it. And they, well, couldn’t even do that.
None of this is to diminish the potential impact of a bomb in Times Square. We’re looking like we’re entering a British/Israeli style of terror threat: persistent, low level, crude.
Update, 2:42 p.m.: This is rather typically sensible. Steve Coll wants Obama to say:
They intend to frighten us; we are not frightened. They intend to kill and maim; we will bring them to justice. They intend to attract attention for their extremist views; the indiscriminate nature of their violence only discredits and isolates them. They intend to disrupt us and throw us into fits of media-saturated hysteria; we will remain vigilant, but we will also keep their unsuccessful attempted murder in perspective. Something like that.
Yeah, but that gets you called a softie, as if there’s nothing between counterproductive, astrategic overreaction and myopic, blithe dismissal, and vigilance doesn’t exist.
Update, 3:47 p.m.: Apparently Ray Kelly says there’s no evidence of a TTP link.
Update, 7:51 a.m., May 3: Apparently there’s a second TTP video, this one featuring Hakimullah “I’m not dead after all” Mehsud.
7 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
So the formula at this point is basically that the “style of terror threat” we face is just roughly approximated by the magnitude and competence of the latest unsuccessful attempt?
No, it’s that there’s a pattern that’s been in evidence over the past maybe-two-years, and that’s pertinent. Maybe I shouldn’t have tried to search for an analogy; I was running out of the GTMO media center to get something to eat & wrote fast.
I’m just stuck on how that’s all well and good until things change dramatically without warning…
A fair point, but it’s a good caveat, rather than a good rule, no? Otherwise we’d have to discount experience to an unwise degree.
I’d say it’s a good rule not to draw very many conclusions about what will happen in the future based on what’s happening right now when it involves human agency not just physical processes or the like.
Its kind of funny that the bravest “warriors” on our side in the GWOT seem to be the ones who wants to spread the most terror to the people. Its as if enhancing the effect of the enemies attacks somehow is good for the country. The right wing is acting like a strategic multiplier for AQ and affiliates. //shakes head//
FWIW, I don’t necessarily disagree with Spencer’s assessment if we put this in the context of a forced exercize. I simply regard the whole enterprise of characterizing overall threat — which implicitly gives probabilities for events of various natures — as more fraught than worthwhile. I think providing more transparency in these assessments as to the discreet facts involved and less emphasis on the qualitative assessment of the meta-properties that writer X adheres to. But that is a personal view.
I should take this opportunity to warn Spencer that if he is in any way relying on me to be a token “right-wing” regular commenter, I am likely to prove deeply inadequate to the task.